Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You don't need to break their neck, all you need to do is blow a leg off!
    Blow a leg off? You mad? No hunter kills a deer by blowing their legs off, especially with a hunting rifle - it's a head kill, instant death, no pain, no breaking teeth when you find the bullet in your tea.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Blow a leg off? You mad? No hunter kills a deer by blowing their legs off, especially with a hunting rifle - it's a head kill, instant death, no pain, no breaking teeth when you find the bullet in your tea.
    I didn't realise people regularly hunted deer with hounds.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise people regularly hunted deer with hounds.
    They don't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, (fox) hunting is deplorable, especially when it's for sport and not for meat.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A definite aye.

    Anything which advances personal freedoms to the detriment of animal rights has my support.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Get a gun and stalk some commies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    Nope - animal rights are important.

    Also the formatting his abhorrent
    Absoultely, how can we ever justify hunting animals for pleasure?
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is one of the easiest nays I've ever given. As TitanCream and others have pointed out, we should do more to improve animal rights, not hinder them.
    Thank you. This is a step backwards and even more so, there is no need for this bill and I oppose it in all its entirety. I am very disappointed in my colleague(s).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    They don't.
    I see.

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Nay, (fox) hunting is deplorable, especially when it's for sport and not for meat.
    And all the foxes being shot (often badly) and trapped instead is what?

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Get a gun and stalk some commies.
    Something tells me that's even less likely to be made legal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)


    And all the foxes being shot (often badly) and trapped instead is what?

    Would you mind pointing out where I endorsed trapping?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Absoultely, how can we ever justify hunting animals for pleasure?


    Thank you. This is a step backwards and even more so, there is no need for this bill and I oppose it in all its entirety. I am very disappointed in my colleague(s).
    LEt me give you three circuimstances and tell me which you would prefer as human to happen to you:
    1) I snap your neck if you're too slow
    2) I shoot you and leave you for dead
    3) I leave a trap in the middle of a busy path and hope that you are caught in it (and then leave you for dead)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Would you mind pointing out where I endorsed trapping?
    It's a question, shooting and trapping to remove them?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    LEt me give you three circuimstances and tell me which you would prefer as human to happen to you:
    1) I snap your neck if you're too slow
    2) I shoot you and leave you for dead
    3) I leave a trap in the middle of a busy path and hope that you are caught in it (and then leave you for dead)
    None, why would I want any of those? And thats a terrible justification for hunting animals. We shouldn't and cannot assume a moral high ground for our delusions of saving animals because we are killing them ourselves. This is a terrible idea and only serves the interests of those who gain pleasure from killing animals.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    LEt me give you three circuimstances and tell me which you would prefer as human to happen to you:
    1) I snap your neck if you're too slow
    2) I shoot you and leave you for dead
    3) I leave a trap in the middle of a busy path and hope that you are caught in it (and then leave you for dead)
    There's no reason why you should do any of them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's a question, shooting and trapping to remove them?
    I don't believe the fox population is rising at an alarmingly high rate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The ban on hunting simply stops you from shooting animals for fun, it's no more of an "infringement of personal liberties" than the ban on shooting people for fun.

    Your personal liberties do not involve removing the personal liberties of others.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The resounding outrage towards this (early understanding) is that this bill is wrong, unnecessary and cruel in nature. It appears to be a clear failing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    None, why would I want any of those? And thats a terrible justification for hunting animals. We shouldn't and cannot assume a moral high ground for our delusions of saving animals because we are killing them ourselves. This is a terrible idea and only serves the interests of those who gain pleasure from killing animals.
    Pick one of them, something tells me you'll pick the first.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    There's no reason why you should do any of them.
    Tell that to the people that do it, although I guess you see them all as country bumpkins

    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    The ban on hunting simply stops you from shooting animals for fun, it's no more of an "infringement of personal liberties" than the ban on shooting people for fun.

    Your personal liberties do not involve removing the personal liberties of others.
    Except it doesn't do that

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    I don't believe the fox population is rising at an alarmingly high rate.
    And the rate at which foxes are killed has not changed since 2005, only the method, to more inhumane methods that aren't even necessarily discriminatory.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pick one of them, something tells me you'll pick the first.



    Tell that to the people that do it, although I guess you see them all as country bumpkins



    Except it doesn't do that



    And the rate at which foxes are killed has not changed since 2005, only the method, to more inhumane methods that aren't even necessarily discriminatory.
    I won't pick one because as I said, I don't want any, and I don't think that this will change my mind because theres no justification for it regardless.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    None, why would I want any of those? And thats a terrible justification for hunting animals. We shouldn't and cannot assume a moral high ground for our delusions of saving animals because we are killing them ourselves. This is a terrible idea and only serves the interests of those who gain pleasure from killing animals.
    Hear, hear. There is no justification whatsoever for hunting animals, especially for aristocratic pleasure.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    The resounding outrage towards this (early understanding) is that this bill is wrong, unnecessary and cruel in nature. It appears to be a clear failing.
    Hansard is a wonderful thing, I suggest you go look at it. This is your first time at this.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.